Minimally invasive flapless vs. flapped approach for single implant placement: a 2-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparative evaluation of circumferential crestal bone loss after 1 year of implant placement with flapless versus flap surgery using surgical template after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region using cone-beam computed tomography: A randomized controlled trial

Aim

The study was aimed to evaluate circumferential crestal bone level after one year of implant placement with flapless versus flap surgery using surgical template after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region using CBCT.

Setting and Design

The study was designed as a Randomized controlled trial.

Material and Methods

32 implants were placed in single edentulous spaces in the mandibular posterior region after random allocation into two groups: Flap surgery (Group A) and Flapless surgery (Group B). Virtual implant planning was performed using Blue Sky Bio software, and static CBCT guided 3D printed surgical templates were fabricated for all participants of both the groups. Immediate non-functional temporization was performed. Circumferential crestal bone levels were assessed after surgery and one-year follow-up using CBCT and XELIS software. Vertical bone loss (VBL) and horizontal bone loss (HBL) was assessed on four sides: buccal, lingual, mesial and distal.

Statistical Analysis Used

Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences IBM Corp. Released 2017, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) and Graph Pad Prism 7.0 version. The level of significance was chosen <0.05. Chi square test was performed to assess the difference in the age in the two groups. Mann-Whitney U test was performed to compare the two groups for outcome measure. Graphically, quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plot was made using mean and standard deviation for normality verification of data.

Results

100% survival rate and patient compliance was observed along the one-year follow-up duration. By using Mann-Whitney U test, statistically significant difference was found in the vertical bone loss among participants of Flap surgery (Group A) and Flapless surgery (Group B) on all the four sides after one year of implant placement. However, significant results were not obtained for the difference in the horizontal bone level.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this study, vertical bone loss measured circumferentially was more positively correlated with the implants placed with flap surgery compared to flapless surgery after immediate loading in the posterior mandibular region after one year.

A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials Evaluating the Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Surgery for Soft Tissue Management: Aesthetics, Postoperative Morbidity, and Clinical Results

Background and Objectives: The necessity for less invasive and patient-friendly surgical therapies guided the development of the "minimally invasive surgical technique" (MIST). The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of MIST for soft tissue management considering aesthetic results, postoperative morbidity, and clinical outcomes. Materials and Methods: Several databases were used to conduct a thorough analysis of the scientific evidence. To investigate randomized clinical trials (RCTs), MeSH terms and keywords were provided. Results: Eleven RCTs were chosen. These experiments included 273 patients. The trials that explored MIST for papilla preservation presented greater efficacy in increasing papillary height (p < 0.05). MIST showed stable clinical outcomes for the management of excessive gingival display and with a flapless technique for single implant placement. Considering the treatment of gingival recessions, some RCTs presented greater root coverage with MIST (p < 0.05), while other trials did not show differences between groups. Regarding aesthetic perception, five RCTs indicated high patient satisfaction with MIST (p < 0.05). Similarly, six RCTs reported that patients in the MIST group presented significantly less post-surgical pain and lower wound healing scores (p < 0.01). Conclusions: It was concluded that using MIST resulted in more clinical studies reporting better clinical outcomes. Considering aesthetic appearance, slightly more than half of the clinical trials also showed improved results with MIST. Likewise, regarding postoperative morbidity, 60% of the clinical trials also described better scores with MIST. All of this indicates that MIST is a good alternative for the management of soft tissues.

Flap versus flapless alveolar ridge preservation: A clinical and histological single-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this randomized clinical trial was to compare a flapless technique of alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) to a flap technique to determine if preserving the periosteal blood supply would limit loss of crestal ridge width and height.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients were randomly assigned to receive ARP using either a flapless or flap technique. Sockets were grafted with demineralized bone matrix and mineralized particulate allograft then covered with a barrier in both groups. Re-entry was performed at 4 months to obtain samples for histological analysis and subsequent implant placement.

RESULTS

Ridge width of the flapless group at the crest decreased from 8.3 ± 1.3 mm to 7.0 ± 1.9 mm for a mean loss of 1.3 ± 0.9 mm (p < 0.05), whereas the flap group decreased from 8.5 ± 1.5 mm to 7.5 ± 1.5 mm for a mean loss of 1.0 ± 1.1 mm (p < 0.05). The mean midbuccal vertical change for the flap group was a loss of 0.9 ± 1.3 mm (p < 0.05) versus 0.5 ± 0.9 mm (p < 0.05) for the flapless group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. Histologically, flapless ARP revealed more vital mineralized tissue (44 ± 10%) compared to the flap group (p>0.05). In the flapless group, the occlusal soft tissue was significantly thicker than in the flap group at the 4-month re-entry (p< 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Crestal ridge width, height, and percentage of vital mineralized bone following treatment with a flapless ARP technique, was not significantly different from a flap technique.

Accuracy of guided dental implant surgery using a fully digital workflow: A case series

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Computer-guided implant surgery facilitated by intraoral scanning may enhance the efficiency of the digital workflow. However, it is necessary to assess technique accuracy to evaluate the accuracy of implant placement.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy of a virtual computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) static guided surgery technique associated with intraoral scanning in partially edentulous participants by analyzing the overlap among preoperative and postoperative cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans, virtual planning, and the guided surgery performed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eleven partially edentulous participants underwent CBCT and intraoral scanning (TRIOS3). Data were integrated into a software program (ImplantViewer 3.5) for the virtual planning of implants and 3-dimensional (3D) printing of the prototype CAD-CAM surgical guide. A total of 18 implants were placed using the CAD-CAM static computer-aided implant surgery technique (Strong SW). After 15 days, postoperative CBCT scans were made and 4 variables (angular, coronal, apical, and vertical deviation) were measured to compare the virtually planned implants and the implants placed by analyzing the overlap between preoperative and postoperative of the virtual planning and guided surgery performed using the ImplantViewer 3.5 and Rhino 6 software programs.

RESULTS

Deviations were found in all parameters analyzed. The mean angular deviation was 2.68 ±1.62 degrees; mean coronal deviation, 0.82 ±0.44 mm; mean apical deviation, 1.14 ±0.44 mm; and mean vertical deviation, 0.62 ±0.44 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The implants placed using the CAD-CAM static guided surgery technique associated with intraoral scanning in partially edentulous participants exhibited angular and linear deviations when compared with virtual planning implants. However, these deviations were not clinically significant.

Minimal invasiveness in the alveolar ridge preservation, with or without concomitant implant placement

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the benefit of ridge preservation (RP) with minimally invasive (MI) approaches with or without concomitant implant placement on morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Three Internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers. The search strategy was designed to include any clinical study published on RP with MI approaches such as flapless surgery, socket shield and socket sealing techniques and, use of biological agents. Characteristics of the individual studies, regarding methodological aspects, quantitative and qualitative data were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated, and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 860 reports resulted in 26 included original articles. Nine publications evaluated MI approaches for RP without concomitant implant placement. Eleven studies evaluated interventions for RP with immediate implant placement (IIP). Six studies compared RP with IIP vs RP without IIP. This systematic review found that MI approaches in most of the studies failed to improve clinical variables regarding morbidity, esthetics, and patient-related outcomes. Based on the limited number of studies analyzed and the methodological discrepancies observed, it is not possible to confirm that MI approaches promote a significant benefit when applied to RP procedures.

Does implant placement using a minimally invasive technique increase early failures among trainees at an academic center?

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify whether dental implants placed using a flapless technique have a higher early failure rate, defined as failure within 6 months of placement, compared to implants placed with flap elevation when a surgical guide is not used.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate implants placed with either flapless (FL) or mucoperiosteal flap (MF) surgery between 2006 and 2012 at the Philadelphia VA Medical Center (PVAMC). Implant status after FL or MF surgery was assessed using dental encounter and radiographs at subsequent follow-up appointments to assess for early implant failures within 6 months of implant placement.

RESULTS

The FL technique was used to place 89 implants in 38 subjects, while the MF technique was used to place 381 implants in 139 subjects. Early failure occurred in 37 implants, of which 13 occurred in the FL group and 24 occurred in the MF group. FL surgery was found to be associated with a 265% increase in early implant failure (OR 2.653; 95% CL 1.287-5.469) and was statistically significant (p = 0.0064). Residents were over 200% more likely to have an early implant failure when using the FL technique (OR 2.314; 95% CL 1.112-4.816), CONCLUSIONS: Analysis revealed flapless implant placement was associated with higher early implant failure rates. In addition, early failures were more likely to occur when residents placed an implant using the flapless technique. While FL surgery can result in long-term success, it is a more technique-sensitive approach that requires greater clinical skill and stricter case selection to perform.

Impact of the periodontal phenotype in premolar and molar sites on bone loss following full thickness mucoperiosteal flap. A 1-year prospective clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Full thickness mucoperiosteal flap (FTF) elevation could potentially affect the periodontium of the involved teeth; it is not clear if the periodontal phenotype of teeth involved in a FTF may influence these changes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of FTF on teeth periodontium, as well as assessing the impact of periodontal phenotype on bone remodeling.

METHODS

In this single arm prospective clinical trial, 26 subjects and a total of 52 adjacent teeth were included. Patients receiving implant surgery in the posterior area, at the time of implant site preparation, an FTF was extended one tooth mesial and distal to the planned site, and the flap was elevated both facially and lingually. Vertical and horizontal bone linear changes were measured on both adjacent teeth, using superimposed cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) images taken prior to implant placement (T0) and at 12 months (T1). Baseline digital scans of models and DICOM files were superimposed to assess the periodontal phenotype.

RESULTS

Vertical bone changes from T0 to T1 were statistically significant (p = 0.013), with changes were significantly higher at the mesial (-0.31± 0.30 mm) and facial (p<0.05) sites. Horizontal dimensional changes 5 mm subcrestally were similar among different locations (p = 0.086) and the bone width loss was higher closest to the crest (p = 0.001). No correlation was found between soft tissue thickness and bone changes. However, bone thickness at baseline appears to influence the extent of horizontal bone remodeling. Overall, the magnitude of bone loss either vertically or horizontally was clinically insignificant (≤0.4 mm).

CONCLUSION(S)

Marginal bone changes in maxillary and mandibular posterior teeth following FTF at 12 months are very minimal, and mainly influenced by bone rather than soft tissue thickness. Overall, FTF does not seem to have deleterious effects on adjacent teeth periodontium. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparative evaluation of crestal bone level by flapless and flap techniques for implant placement: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

:To compare the crestal bone level of flapless technique of dental implant placement with the flap technique.

Setting and Design

This Systematic review and Meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines and registered with PROSPERO.

Materials and Methods

Electronic search of Medline and Google scholar databases for articles from 2010 till March 2020 was performed. Studies comparing the crestal bone level with both the techniques were included. After the collection of data, the risk of bias was assessed for each study.

Statistical Analysis Used

Meta-analysis was executed using RevMan 5 software version 5.3.

Results

23 studies were included. Statistically significant difference in crestal bone level was found between flapless and flap surgery with mean difference of -0.14 (flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.24 to -0.03; P = 0.01FNx01). The difference in crestal bone level between the 2 groups was not statistically significant with a mean difference of -0.05(Guided flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.10 to 0.00; P=0.06). Meta-analysis of the freehand flapless surgery with flap surgery generated a mean difference of -0.20 which was found to be statistically significant (Freehand flapless placement versus flap surgery; 95% CI: -0.37 to -0.03; P=0.02FNx01).

Conclusions

Flapless placement of implant can positively influence crestal bone loss in comparison with conventional flap technique.

Comparison of general and aesthetic effects between flapless and flap techniques in dental implantation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Information about the aesthetic effects of flapless in implant surgeries is scant. Differences of the survival rate (SR) and crestal bone loss (CBL) between the two techniques were also controversial. Thus, this review was aimed to compare the general and aesthetic effects of flapless and flap approaches in implant surgeries.

Materials and methods

Following the principals of PRISMA, literature databases were searched for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the clinical performances of flap and flapless techniques. After that, relevant data of selected studies were pooled and analyzed to compare SR, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), visual analogue scale (VAS), papillae presentation index (PPI), keratinized mucosa (KM) width and CBL between the two techniques.

Results

Fourteen RCTs were included. No significant difference was found in SR (RR = − 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) (− 0.05, 0.04)), BOP (OR = 0.40, 95% CI (0.15, 1.02)), KM width (WMD = − 0.42, 95% CI (− 1.02, 0.17)) between two groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that the difference of CBL was insignificant in two groups (WMD = − 0.13, 95% CI (− 0.63, 0.38)). However, flap techniques would lead more peri-implant PD (WMD = − 0.37, 95% CI (− 0.51, − 0.23)). Subgroup analysis also indicated lower VAS scores in flapless group after 1 day (WMD = − 1.66, 95% CI (− 2.16, − 1.16)) but comparable pain experience after 3 days (WMD = − 0.59, 95% CI (− 1.33, 0.16)). Mean difference of PPI (WMD = 0.32, 95% CI (0.28, 0.35)) between the two groups was significant.

Conclusions

The flapless procedure showed a superiority in preserving gingival papillae, reducing postoperative pain and peri-implant PD compared to the flap procedure, while exhibiting comparable effects on SR, BOP, KW width changes and CBL. Flapless technique is more recommended at the ideal soft and hard tissue implanting sites.

Clinical outcomes of flap versus flapless immediately loaded single dental implants in the mandibular posterior region: One-year follow-up results from a randomized controlled trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Flapless implant placement with immediate functional loading has been reported in anterior locations. However, data on posterior locations are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine and compare clinical outcomes of flap versus flapless surgically placed single posterior mandibular dental implants subjected to immediate functional loading.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Participants with missing mandibular first molar teeth were recruited and randomized into 2 groups (n=51): flapped and flapless. Dental implants were surgically placed and loaded immediately with interim restorations following implant protective occlusion. Outcome measures were implant failure, crestal bone loss, and periodontal parameters: modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, and pocket depths. Outcome data were recorded at baseline, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up visits. Cone beam computed tomography scans were used to calculate crestal bone loss, and periodontal outcomes were recorded by using a resin covered periodontal probe (α=.05).

RESULTS

After 12 months, similar implant failure rates (P>.05) were found between the groups. Crestal bone loss in the flapped group was statistically higher than in the flapless group at 6 months (0.83 ±0.21 mm versus 0.75 ±0.23 mm) and at 12 months (1.04 ±0.27 mm versus 0.90 ±0.24 mm) from the baseline. The modified plaque index, modified sulcus bleeding index, and peri-implant probing depths (PDs) in both groups increased from the baseline to 6-month follow-ups (Baseline modified plaque index: 0.82 ±0.54 versus 0.79 ±0.21; Baseline modified sulcus bleeding index: 0.74 ±0.21 versus 0.70 ±0.43; Baseline PD: 1.25 ±0.37 mm versus 1.20 ±0.22 mm; 6 months modified plaque index: 1.54 ±0.70 versus 1.21 ±0.45; 6 months modified sulcus bleeding index: 1.93 ±0.54 versus 1.51 ±0.61; 6 months PD: 3.20 ±0.73 mm versus 2.80 ±0.43 mm). At 12-month follow-ups after repeated oral hygiene reinforcements, periodontal parameters had improved (decreased) significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Flapless implant insertion with immediate functional loading could be considered as an appropriate treatment option for providing functional restorations on the day of implant placement with minimal surgical intervention, reducing crestal bone loss, and periodontal complications.

Crestal bone stability after flapless placement of sloped implants with immediate temporization in edentulous mandible. A prospective comparative clinical trial

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate crestal bone stability around sloped implants using the flapless procedure and compare it with conventional implants placed axially.

Materials and methods

A total of 40 bone‐level implants with platform switching were used for this study for 10 patients (4 males and 6 females) in edentulous mandible. Twenty mesial conventional implants were placed in upright position and 20 distal 30° sloped implants tilted 30°. Bone loss was estimated using radiographic imaging after a 6‐ and a 12‐month follow‐up period. Comparison of the bone loss in the distal and mesial region at both implantation angles were conducted to understand the nature and progression of crestal bone loss.

Results

Crestal bone loss around the sloped implants was 0.29 mm (SD = 0.292) on average, while around conventional implants it was 0.22 mm (SD = 0.202) after one‐year follow‐up. However, there was no significant difference in the average of crestal bone loss between two trial groups after 6 months (p < 0.243) and one‐year (p < 0.614) follow‐up. The results indicated a 100% implant survival rate after one‐year follow‐up. Additionally, three fixed prostheses needed realignment after fracturing during the follow‐up time.

Conclusion

Considering the limitations of this study, it can be presumed that sloped and conventional implants with platform switching and conical connection have the same potential for minimal crestal bone loss.

Long-term clinical performance of flapless implant surgery compared to the conventional approach with flap elevation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The conventional implant approach involves flap elevation, which may result in increased soft tissue and bone loss and postoperative morbidity. The flapless surgical technique, aided by three-dimensional medical imaging equipment, is regarded as a possible alternative to the conventional approach to alleviate the above issues. Several studies have been performed regarding the role of flapless implant surgery. However, the results are inconsistent and there is no robust synthesis of long-term evidence to better inform surgeons regarding which type of surgical technique is more beneficial to the long-term prognosis of patients in need of implant insertion.

AIM

To compare the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach with flap elevation.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and grey literature databases were searched from inception to 23 September 2019. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the long-term clinical performance after flapless implant surgery to that after the conventional approach over a follow-up of three years or more were included. Meta-analyses were conducted to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between the long-term implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and complication rate of the flapless and conventional groups. Subgroup analyses were carried out to account for the possible effects of the guided or free-hand method during flapless surgery.

RESULTS

Ten articles, including four RCTs and six cohort studies, satisfied the eligibility criteria and nine of them were included in the meta-analysis. There was no significant difference between the long-term implant survival rate [OR = 1.30, 95%CI (0.37, 4.54), P = 0.68], marginal bone loss [MD = 0.01, 95%CI (-0.42, 0.44), P = 0.97], and complication rate [OR = 1.44, 95%CI (0.77, 2.68), P = 0.25] after flapless implant surgery and the conventional approach. Moreover, subgroup analyses revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between the implant survival rate [guided: OR = 1.52, 95%CI (0.19, 12.35), P = 0.70]; free-hand: n = 1, could not be estimated), marginal bone loss [guided: MD = 0.22, 95%CI (-0.14, 0.59), P = 0.23; free-hand: MD = -0.27, 95%CI (-1.10, 0.57), P = 0.53], or complication rate [guided: OR = 1.16, 95%CI (0.52, 2.63), P = 0.71; free-hand: OR = 1.75, 95%CI (0.66, 4.63), P = 0.26] in the flapless and conventional groups either with use of the surgical guide or by the free-hand method.

CONCLUSION

The flapless surgery and conventional approach had comparable clinical performance over three years or more. The guided or free-hand technique does not significantly affect the long-term outcomes of flapless surgery.

Comparison between flapless and open-flap implant placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

No consensus has been reached regarding the influence of the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques on the placement of dental implants. This systematic review compared the effects of flapless implant placement and implant placement with elevation of the mucoperiosteal flap in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival rate and complications rates. This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42017071475. Two independent reviewers performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published until December 2017. The search identified 559 references. After a detailed review, 24 studies were assessed for eligibility. A total of 1025 patients who had received a total of 1873 dental implants were included. There were no significant differences between the flapless and open-flap surgical techniques in terms of implant survival rates (P=0.34; risk ratio (RR): 1.36; confidence interval (CI): 0.72-2.56), marginal bone loss (P=0.23; MD: -0.20; CI: -0.52-0.13), or complication rates (P=0.67; RR: 1.10; CI: 0.70-1.73). The current meta-analysis showed that the implant survival rate, marginal bone levels, and complications of flapless surgery were similar to those of open-flap surgery over a mean follow-up period of 21.62 months.

Analysis of Linear and Angular Deviations of Implants Installed With a Tomographic-Guided Surgery Technique: A Prospective Cohort Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the linear and angular deviations of the implants installed by the computerized tomography (CT)-guided surgery technique. Eighteen patients who underwent implant insertion by means of CT-guided surgery participated in this study. Ten of these patients had a fully edentulous maxilla, and 8 had a fully edentulous mandible. The patients received a total of 115 implants, of which 81 implants were installed in the maxilla and 34 installed in the mandible. Tomographic guides were made for tomographic examination in both the upper and lower jaws. After the image acquisition, the virtual planning of the positioning of the implants was performed in relation to the previously made prosthesis. The measurement of the linear and angular deviations between the virtual planning and the final position of the implants was performed with the overlap of the planning and postoperative tomography. There were no differences in the linear and angular deviations of the implants installed in the maxilla and mandible. Compared with the coronal region, there was a trend of greater linear deviations in the apical regions of the implants and a greater tendency toward deviations in the posterior regions than in the anterior regions of both arches. The CT-guided surgery promoted the installation of implants with high accuracy and allowed the installation of straight pillars in all cases evaluated. The linear deviations were not different in the different regions of the mouth or in the different portions of the implants.

Clinical parameters of implants placed in healed sites using flapped and flapless techniques: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Dental implant placement using flapless surgery is a minimally invasive technique that improves blood supply compared with flapped surgery. However, the flapless technique does not provide access to allow bone regeneration.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical parameters following implant surgery in healed sites, using two procedures: flapped vs. flapless surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A detailed electronic search was carried out in the PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. The focused question was, "How do flapped and flapless surgical techniques affect the clinical parameters of dental implants placed in healed sites?". All the studies included with a prospective controlled design were considered separately, depending on whether they had been conducted on animals or humans. The following data were recorded in all the included studies: number of implants, failures, location (maxilla, mandible), type of rehabilitation (partial or single), follow-up and flap design. The variables selected for comparison in the animal studies were the following: flap design, gingival index, mucosal height, recession and probing pocket depth. In humans studies the variables were as follows: flap design, plaque index, gingival index, recession, probing pocket depth, papilla index and keratinized gingiva.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included, six were experimental studies and four were clinical studies. Studies in animals showed better results using the flapless technique in the parameters analyzed. There is no consensus in the clinical parameters analyzed in human studies, but there is a trend to better results using flapless approach.

CONCLUSION

The animal studies included in the present review show that implants placed in healed sites with a flapless approach have better clinical parameters than the flapped procedure in a short-term follow-up. In human studies, there is no consensus about which technique offer better results in terms of clinical parameters. Therefore, more research in humans is required in order to overcome the limitations and contrast these results.